Assumption of Risk in a Personal Injury Case

Under the legal principle known as "assumption of risk," individuals who have sustained injuries might be barred from securing a favorable outcome in a personal injury lawsuit or obtaining a settlement for their injuries through insurance. You cannot seek to attribute liability to the defendant if you willingly engaged in activities that carried an inherent risk of injury. This blog explains the different classifications of the assumption of risk and explores its implications for personal injury cases.

 

Express Assumption of the Risk

 

In personal injury law, the express assumption of risk arises when you explicitly acknowledge and accept the potential hazards associated with a particular activity, typically through a written agreement. This explicit recognition and acceptance of risk effectively means that you have consented not to hold the party offering the activity responsible for any resulting injuries.

 

This concept is commonly encountered in situations where participants sign waiver forms before engaging in risky activities, such as skydiving, skiing, or attending fitness classes. These waivers are intended to communicate the risks involved and ensure that participants make informed decisions about their involvement. By signing such documents, individuals explicitly agree that they understand the potential dangers and agree to assume all responsibility for any injuries that may occur.

 

The enforceability of these waivers can vary significantly based on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances surrounding the signing and execution of the agreement. Courts often scrutinize these agreements to ensure they were made without coercion and that the participant clearly understood the risks involved. Furthermore, these agreements must be reasonable and not violate public policy. For example, they cannot absolve a party of liability for gross negligence or intentional acts of harm.

 

Implied Assumption of the Risk

 

Implied assumption of risk refers to a legal concept in personal injury cases where your actions or behavior indicate a tacit agreement to undertake the inherent risks of an activity, even without a formal, written acknowledgment. This understanding is not expressed through a document or verbal agreement but is inferred from the circumstances of the individual's participation in the activity that led to the injury.

 

The principle of implied assumption of risk comes into play when you engage in activities that are widely known to carry certain dangers and, by choosing to participate, implicitly agrees to bear the responsibility for any resulting injuries. This might include attending a baseball game and accepting the risk of being hit by a foul ball or choosing to hike in areas known for rough terrain and the potential for falls.

 

Courts examine several factors to determine whether an implied assumption of risk applies, such as the common knowledge of the risks associated with the activity, the plaintiff's experience and background, and whether the plaintiff had the opportunity to observe and understand the risk before the injury occurred. 

 

Unlike the express assumption of risk, which is articulated through explicit agreements, the implied assumption of risk relies heavily on the context of the situation. It underscores the expectation that individuals exercise common sense and personal judgment when deciding to engage in activities with potential hazards.

 

Effect of Contributory and Comparative Negligence Rules

 

Under personal injury law, understanding contributory and comparative negligence rules is crucial if you are pursuing a claim, including for those who may be seeking the expertise of a personal injury attorney in Alaska. These legal doctrines play a pivotal role in determining the outcome of personal injury cases by assessing the degree of fault attributable to each party involved in an incident.

 

Contributory Negligence

 

Contributory negligence bars you from recovering any damages if you are found to be even minimally at fault for the incident that caused their injuries. Under this doctrine, if your own negligence contributed in any way to the accident, your right to compensation could be completely forfeited. This all-or-nothing approach can significantly impact your defense in Alaska because it necessitates proving the defendant's sole responsibility for the incident.

 

Comparative Negligence

 

Comparative negligence, on the other hand, allows for the apportionment of damages based on the degree of fault assigned to each party. This doctrine is subdivided into two main categories: pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence.

 

1. Pure comparative negligence allows you to recover damages even if you are found to be 99% at fault, with the award reduced by their percentage of fault. This system ensures that plaintiffs can receive some form of compensation for their injuries, reflecting their proportionate responsibility for the accident.
2. Modified comparative negligence places a threshold on the plaintiff's fault (usually 50% or 51%), beyond which they cannot recover any damages. If your fault is below this threshold, you can recover damages reduced by your percentage of fault. 

 

Alaska adopts the pure comparative negligence rule, allowing plaintiffs to recover damages even if they are significantly at fault, albeit with compensation reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.

 

The principles of assumption of risk, both express and implied, along with contributory and comparative negligence rules, shape personal injury law, guiding how liability is assessed and compensation determined. Seek a knowledgeable personal injury attorney to fight for your compensation in Alaska.